QT, if gender is innate to identity

submitted by HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (77 children)

The language trait is innate but varies over cultures and time.

The desire to do gender, masculinity and femininity, can be natural even if it is completed by culture.

Humans being adaptable flexible creatures, need to have a flexible gender system to deal with different environments. How flexible is debateable. But the system appears emergent.

In turn if "gender" was not innate why do all cultures across time have it?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (76 children)

Do most people who perform gender after being indoctrinated in the system since birth really desire performing it? I don’t think so.

I don’t agree with the idea that people generally desire to perform gender, let alone desire to do whatever gender roles indicate they are supposed to do or like.

How does this gel with the narrative many trans people have that follows along the track of ‘I liked pink when told to like blue, therefore I’m a woman inside’ or vice versa?

Do you think the average ‘gender conforming’ (ridiculous notion since nobody is properly conforming to all norms assigned) person truly wants to do it, or simply feels they must due to societal expectations?

Why do we need a flexible gender system? Why do we need gender at all?

It’s not innate imo, and all cultures have it because all cultures recognise the sexed differences and have found it useful to apply restrictions to behaviour.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (75 children)

Do most people who perform gender after being indoctrinated in the system since birth really desire performing it? I don’t think so.

You're saying most people actively want to be gender non conforming?

I don’t agree with the idea that people generally desire to perform gender, let alone desire to do whatever gender roles indicate they are supposed to do or like.

What do you think they want?

How does this gel with the narrative many trans people have that follows along the track of ‘I liked pink when told to like blue, therefore I’m a woman inside’ or vice versa?

I think masculinity and femininity are sexuality.

EDIT I think masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality.

Attraction to men is a natural desire that commonly appears in women. Attraction to women is a desire that commonly appears in men. Masculinity and femininity follow the same pattern.

So expressing either of these desires commonly feels like confirmation to those trans people. Even though they are both only indirectly related.

Do you think the average ‘gender conforming’ (ridiculous notion since nobody is properly conforming to all norms assigned) person truly wants to do it, or simply feels they must due to societal expectations?

I think saying gender conformity is a ridiculous notion is evasive. Most people are gender conforming and don't feel anxiety over it. They are often oblivious because it feels so natural. I would think because it is natural.

They may not like some aspects of "it" but they only want that aspect changed. They are not gender non conforming.

A background issue here is masculine non conformity and feminine non conformity do not express themselves the same way. The "genders" are not perfect mirrors.

Why do we need a flexible gender system? Why do we need gender at all?

It's emergent from human nature so you can't abolish it.

Gender non conforming people have not escaped gender.

We can have higher tolerance of minorities who are non conforming but a general population will never be indifferent to it.

[–]Juniperius 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Oh! After all these years I think I get what you're saying. You think that masculinity and femininity are exhibitionism. And you think that all humans are exhibitionists. You think that practically all things that humans do, all the time, we do for sexual reasons. And not even in a way that I would sort of recognize, like "I do this to attract a partner so I can have sex," but more like, "showing myself to people in this outfit is sex." I knew you were preoccupied with your particular kink, but it just clicked for me that you think everyone is, all the time. How Freudian! I think it must be kind of exhausting to live that way.

Do you recognize the existence of non-sexual drives? Do we do anything, want anything, enjoy anything, that doesn't have a sexual thrill at the bottom of it? A drive to learn new things, to accomplish something difficult? Non-sexual relationships with family members and friends? A desire to be in nature, to commune with something larger than the self?

Are all displays sexual, in your eyes? In the context where I live it's very politically divided, and the culture wars are kind of everything. I'd say people are more interested in displays of tribalism than gender. If you only go by someone's clothes, cars with bumper stickers, wander through the house and see what they show on the walls and bookshelves, everything but the physical body in other words, you might have an easier time knowing whether they were "blue team" or "red team" so to speak than which sex they were. It could be different where you are, but your theory is no good if it has to pretend that your little corner of the world represents the whole of human nature.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (17 children)

Oh! After all these years I think I get what you're saying. You think that masculinity and femininity are exhibitionism.

I do think sexual display are strong parts of masculinity and femininity.

It appears all societies link masculinity and femininity

Why wouldn't humans have sexual display? Humans especially of all animals would have a sexuality deeply meshed with culture which is seemingly a major human feature.

And you think that all humans are exhibitionists.

Sexual exhibitionism seems like a description of an excessive form.

But certainly human sexuality does work without sexual display. It's part of courtship.

In humans men and women both perform sexual selection. So it would be natural for them to perform sexual display. A super common thing in the animal world.

You think that practically all things that humans do, all the time, we do for sexual reasons.

Nope not at all. I do think we are natural animals and cannot escape natural desires.

We are not completely conscious of our desires. Even if we can learn them or consciously manage them we cannot choose our desires.

A sexual display is not always a conscious display.

And not even in a way that I would sort of recognize, like "I do this to attract a partner so I can have sex," but more like, "showing myself to people in this outfit is sex." I knew you were preoccupied with your particular kink, but it just clicked for me that you think everyone is, all the time. How Freudian! I think it must be kind of exhausting to live that way.

I'm not a Freudian, I don't think it's good science. Even if some ideas progressed into good ideas.

I don't think "everyone is like me" but I don't think I'm absolutely different from all other humans.

Do you recognize the existence of non-sexual drives?

Of course.

Do we do anything, want anything, enjoy anything, that doesn't have a sexual thrill at the bottom of it?

Of course.

A drive to learn new things, to accomplish something difficult? Non-sexual relationships with family members and friends? A desire to be in nature, to commune with something larger than the self?

Why are you thinking I think everything is about sex?

I do think humans are natural animals driven by unconscious uncontrollable desires.

Free will acts on those desires.

Are all displays sexual, in your eyes?

No but that depends on where in the chain you are stopping.

A display of loyalty can be natural but not strictly sexual.

In the context where I live it's very politically divided, and the culture wars are kind of everything. I'd say people are more interested in displays of tribalism than gender. If you only go by someone's clothes, cars with bumper stickers, wander through the house and see what they show on the walls and bookshelves, everything but the physical body in other words, you might have an easier time knowing whether they were "blue team" or "red team" so to speak than which sex they were. It could be different where you are, but your theory is no good if it has to pretend that your little corner of the world represents the whole of human nature.

I would think "tribalism" is another natural behaviour humans are prone to.

[–]BiologyIsReal 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Why wouldn't humans have sexual display?

You're missing the point again. She is not saying that humans don't have sexual display, but that humans are driven for other things besides sex. You were the one who claimed that feminity and masculinity were sexuality, so why are you surprised that others think you view everything through sexual lens? And I think Juniperious is right: you seem to be extrapolating your own particular experiences to everyone else. You may not claim to be a woman, but you surely like to act as if you were an expert on women and you try to shield your views under the excuse of "evolution".

And before you ask, no, I don't believe in the blank slate theory. I think differences between women and men are due to both nature and nurture.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (12 children)

You're missing the point again. She is not saying that humans don't have sexual display, but that humans are driven for other things besides sex.

Of course.

You were the one who claimed that feminity and masculinity were sexuality,

I meant to write "Masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality."

It is not all of it but they are connected.

so why are you surprised that others think you view everything through sexual lens? And I think Juniperious is right: you seem to be extrapolating your own particular experiences to everyone else. You may not claim to be a woman, but you surely like to act as if you were an expert on women and you try to shield your views under the excuse of "evolution".

I don't think it is my experience alone that see masculinity and femininity as being deeply connected to the sex lives of humans.

That does not mean all of it is sexual.

And before you ask, no, I don't believe in the blank slate theory. I think differences between women and men are due to both nature and nurture.

Well I agree then. That would be my starting point and those differences are often connected to sexual behaviour.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

No, I don't think we agree at all. You strongly lean on atributing (nearly) all sex differences to nature and assigning a sexual motive to (almost) everything. You often miss what we told you here because you refuse to analyse the power dynamics present in what society expect from each sex unless you're getting off of it, that is. Sex roles and stereotypes vary through time and culture, but always men are at the top of the hierarchy. Men who are perceived as not "manly" enough for whatever reason are looked down by other men, but women lose not matter wheter they conform to social norms or not. But you refuse to recognise this because you get off on viewing yourself as a sumissive woman and women being naturally sumissive. And when you're challenged here for your sexist views, you twist what we say to suit your own ideas of women and men.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (10 children)

But I don't enjoy submissive women. Why would I want that all to be true? And I don't ID as a woman.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You call yourself a straight cross-dresser, so even if you don't ID as a woman, you still get sexually aroused by the idea of being a woman, don't you? You also has described yourself as sumissive in the bedroom and you link sumission with women (i.e. yu think we are naturally sumissive and naturally attracted to dominant men). That is what I meant.

[–]Juniperius 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I do think sexual display are strong parts of masculinity and femininity.

I think it says something that I've been listening to you talk about this for like, four years and It only just hit me that you mean that you think most people get sexual pleasure from conforming to masculinity or femininity. You might consider that bare fact to be a counter argument on its own - the fact that it was such an unfamiliar and unimaginably weird idea to me, with no reflection in my own experience or anyone else I've ever talked to in my life.

Look, here's a metaphor for you. People generally like to eat, right? We have a biological drive to eat, and it is pleasurable.

Some people like to cook as well. It can be a sort of hobby. You can enjoy the anticipation, or the thought of sharing food with someone you care about, impressing someone, whatever. It's pretty common to enjoy cooking, but not as common as enjoying the actual eating, which after all has direct sensory pleasure rewarding fulfilment of a biological drive.

Not many people really enjoy grocery shopping. I do. I love wandering around the store, checking out the half price shelves, reading ingredient labels, smelling the melons. I'm aware that this makes me a bit of a weirdo. For most people grocery shopping is at best utilitarian, despite the association with food and the and the anticipation of a meal later on. At worst it's an awful chore. A lot of people I know absolutely hate it.

Sex is great. Biological drive, physical pleasure. The lead-up to sex, going on a date, or flirting with someone and getting a number or going home together, okay, there can be anticipation and so forth, but not everyone likes that part so much. Getting dressed up, that part I think is like grocery shopping. Like, you might have to do it if you want to cook and then eat a meal, but most people aren't finding it pleasurable in itself, it's just something instrumental that you've got to do if you want to get to the good part.

The entire idea of putting on a "sexual display," as you call it is actually incredibly repellent and stressful to me. I think many people are more casual about it than I am. Like most people can go into the store and say, well look, there are some good avocados today, while a few people are just getting stressed out by the whole experience. But I think it's rare to really enjoy that part, and it connects only tenuously through multiple steps of abstract connection to anything intrinsically enjoyable. I think this holds whether people are going along with the expression template that they've been handed, or the one associated with the other sex, or one that they're trying to make up as they go along.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

I think it says something that I've been listening to you talk about this for like, four years and It only just hit me that you mean that you think most people get sexual pleasure from conforming to masculinity or femininity.

I wouldn't necessarily say most. I think it's mostly a pleasure in others expression.

The thing is I do thing food is often used as a great metaphor for sex. People are forever find erotic play in food. I think that's because there are indirect comparisons.

The sensual display of food is huge part of the pleasure of food. People fuss over the source, the story, the presentation, the ripeness, the colours, the textures. It is a given that the visual pleasure, a story of where they came from, aromas, presentation of food adds to the enjoyment of the flavour. It's a literal display that adds to the pleasure.

The entire idea of putting on a "sexual display," as you call it is actually incredibly repellent and stressful to me.

But that's what men and women do all the time.

What's the food equivalent of finding display repellent? ​Wanting it all ​mixed together in a paste? Completely utilitarian? Nice cutlery, a candle, beautiful plates would be too stressful. I mean I'm joking here but you seem my point.

[–]Juniperius 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seeing, smelling, food is certainly part of the pleasure. Hard to do that while it's still in the package, though.

I think the food equivalent of what I'm talking about, finding display repellent, is not wanting to be on the plate.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

No. I’m saying they are taught it as normalcy and propriety from birth.

I don’t know what they want, but I doubt the average woman wakes up and says I will wear a skirt because it is womanly.

It’s not ridiculous, what’s ridiculous is the idea of anybody being truly gender conforming. Nobody meets every norm assigned to their sex.

I just don’t think gender is innate or particularly meaningful when one doesn’t obsess over it like qt does.

I disagree with gender relating to sexuality. How does sexuality translate to ideas like women are emotional, men are aggressive, girls are highly, boys are grubby etc? How does sexuality relate to gender at all?

I agree anyone who presents as gnc and actively makes an effort to do so due to gendered thinking has not escaped gender.
What about those of us who simply don’t assign a gender or sex to our preferences? Is that a lie we tell ourselves? Does that somehow affect our sexuality if the two are linked?

This seems like a whole lot of odd and some sexist assumptions being presented as something like factual or given knowledge.

How does the oppression of women fit into innate gender? Is that oppression the natural order?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (29 children)

No. I’m saying they are taught it as normalcy and propriety from birth.

Is this the argument that says conforming people are naturally blank but the non conforming naturally have a personality that matches opposite gender cultural norms?

I don’t know what they want, but I doubt the average woman wakes up and says I will wear a skirt because it is womanly.

I think women do generally want to express some form of femininity and men do want to express some form of masculinity.

The small percentage of non conforming people are not evidence the majority want to be non conforming.

It’s not ridiculous, what’s ridiculous is the idea of anybody being truly gender conforming. Nobody meets every norm assigned to their sex.

Well if everyone is non conforming what is the problem? How could we tell if gender was abolished if everyone is non conforming?

The non conforming can't face discrimination because there is no minority of non conforming people to discriminate against.

I just don’t think gender is innate or particularly meaningful when one doesn’t obsess over it like qt does.

I don't think popular qt ideas on gender are entirely accurate.

I often think it's a mess.

I disagree with gender relating to sexuality. How does sexuality translate to ideas like women are emotional, men are aggressive, girls are highly, boys are grubby etc? How does sexuality relate to gender at all?

Women are emotional is a bad idea. Both sexes are emotional. They may not overall on average express the same emotions over time.

I don't think that gender is entirely sexual it can also be about other utilitarian biological drives. On average men are going to be more useful in tasks that require strength, for example violence. Where as women on average are going to be better at breast feeding. I don't think natural behaviour would be indifferent to that.

Evolution isn't planned, schematic or strictly rational.

I do think men are on average more aggressive in all societies. That does not mean all men are aggressive and women never employ aggression.

Does aggression play a role sexuality, well it often does, even if society objects to it.

I agree anyone who presents as gnc and actively makes an effort to do so due to gendered thinking has not escaped gender.

Agreed then.

What about those of us who simply don’t assign a gender or sex to our preferences? Is that a lie we tell ourselves?

Well if a person is strongly gnc, expressing a lot of opposite gender norms, and they say it has nothing to do with gender I think they are wrong.

That does not mean they should or ought to take on a trans identity.

Does that somehow affect our sexuality if the two are linked?

What do you mean by affect?

I think strong gender non conformity will affect how others see the person sexually.

Most people act on the sexual expression of others.

This seems like a whole lot of odd and some sexist assumptions being presented as something like factual or given knowledge.

Sure. I'm arguing a position of how I see things and why they are the way the are.

Can I see the political problems of some of the positions? Very much so. I can often empathise with a political rejection of them.

But I can't unsee the patterns.

How does the oppression of women fit into innate gender? Is that oppression the natural order?

Politically I oppose the oppression of women. I can't honestly say "women are oppressed" in my country Scotland. That does not mean I think society or government is perfect for women but gender oppression seems like an inaccurate description and unfair on the good work done by previous politica1l activists and unfair compared to women in cultures that are explicitly oppressive. But that's besides the point of the natural order question.

Men being on average more aggressive does not make it an ought. There is more than one drive in humans and they can be conflicting. Society can be over all better for men and women if we work to mitigate that aggression.

For example if men or humans in general have a natural latent urge for violence, cultural or state policies that seek to suppress that will be more successful than an assumption that violence is not natural and policies should built around reaching society without violence.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

this the argument that says conforming people are naturally blank but the non conforming naturally have a personality that matches opposite gender cultural norms?

No. Nobody is arguing for the blank slate. Idk why you keep forcing points that aren’t made. I am saying humans experience sexed socialisation and we call it gender roles and nobody is raised without them.

Both sexes are emotional. They may not overall on average express the same emotions over time.

All humans do that lmao. How are they sexed?

I’m not even bothering with the rest lmao. Women can breastfeed so they’re naturally gentler 🙄

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (20 children)

No. Nobody is arguing for the blank slate. Idk why you keep forcing points that aren’t made. I am saying humans experience sexed socialisation and we call it gender roles and nobody is raised without them.

So where does the cross conformity come from?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Preference. When you’re smart enough and mature enough to realise that men’s pants don’t make you less of a woman, you can make less restricted choices without fear of rejection from peers. Society is not as restrictive as it was historically in the modern west regarding clothes.

When less value is placed on conformity it’s easier to break free. Society always has those who reject certain constraints.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (18 children)

Preference

But you agreed strong gnc people are not escaping gender.

When you say

I agree anyone who presents as gnc and actively makes an effort to do so due to gendered thinking has not escaped gender.

If they do not agree with gender theory but act on a strongly gendered pattern can they be said not be acting on gender?

They are acting on gender. They did not create that gender pattern.

When less value is placed on conformity it’s easier to break free. Society always has those who reject certain constraints.

This is part of the problem I have. The GC side ends up seeing femininity as a prison and masculinity as freedom.

Women doing masculinity isn't the end of gender unless all women do it.

Everyone being masculine is internally coherent. It makes sense. In that case gender would be abolished.

But people don't want that and gc has a problem justify why anyone would want to be feminine. GC correctly points out that femininity is a social construction associated with women. But it often sees masculinity as neutrality.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

The GC side ends up seeing femininity as a prison and masculinity as freedom.

it often sees masculinity as neutrality.

This is a total fantasy you have invented out of whole cloth. It's tosh that reflects your own genderist mindset & sexist prejudices.

Please stop telling other people with views different to yours - the vast majority of whom are women - what we think.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You act like there’s no possible way a person could stop associating gender to objects.

People who say silly things like they’d rather die than wear a dress because it’s women’s clothes are trapped by gender. People who wear skirts because they like skirts is not engaging in any sort of obsession over gender, whether conforming or not. They are normal people with preferences.

It’s possible to live in a way that could be considered gnc without making any active effort to be so. I don’t chop wood because I think it’s masculine, I chop wood because the fireplace is my main heat source.

I don’t wear dresses because I think they are feminine, I wear them because I don’t like how pants feel.

That’s preference. Most people go about their day without ever thinking about whether they are conforming to gender norms or not.

You seem to wildly misunderstand us if you think we view femininity as prison and masculinity as freedom. Both are stupid little boxes that have their own restrictions. The feminine box was created to control women, that’s undeniable. The masculine box exists to discourage men from shaming themselves with femininity.

Gender abolishment isn’t about everyone being masculine, it’s about recognising the obvious fact that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are restrictive bullshit and all people have a mixture of the traits assigned to one or the other.

Man you need to really badly do some reading on what gc actually says and what you insert between the lines and assert as common sense.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I don't think that gender is entirely sexual it can also be about other utilitarian biological drives. On average men are going to be more useful in tasks that require strength, for example violence. Where as women on average are going to be better at breast feeding. I don't think natural behaviour would be indifferent to that.

Male brute strength is only required for some kinds of violence that together constitute a minority of all violence, which Oxford defines as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Ever since weapons were first invented & men created hierarchies in which rulers & generals commanded other men in armies & gangs, a great deal of violence in the world has been done by & at the behest of men past the prime of life whose own physical strength wasn't impressive & didn't play a role in carrying out the violence they caused.

For example: Hitler & Goebbels. The designers of the atom bomb. Harry Truman. The chemists who invented Napalm & Agent Orange, the executives who manufactured & marketed it, & the military brass who purchased it & issued orders that it be used. Robert McNamara. Henry Kissinger. The people who developed drone warfare, the high-up officials like Barack Obama who have ordered its use, & all the lower-level military personnel tasked with carrying out the orders.

Today, a great deal interpersonal violence is carried out not by brute strength but by using weapons such as guns, knives, fire, acid and explosives. Most of the guys who've committed mass shootings in North America have not been big strapping particularly strong guys who used brawn, fists and kicks to be violent. Similarly, most modern terrorists have committed their acts of mass violence by using explosives, guns & knives, or by weaponizing modes of transport by driving trucks or cars into crowds of people, & by hijacking airplanes & flying them into buildings.

A breastfeeding woman is fulfilling a biological role, not a gender role. All kinds of women who don't buy into gender have breastfed children. Women don't think of BFing as "feminine," but as female.

Gender ideology says that because women are the ones capable of breastfeeding children, then a woman's "natural role" in a heterosexual family is also to do all the tasks required to feed her entire family forevermore. In some settings, this can mean spending hours each day gathering firewood & fetching water; hunting, trapping, fishing & gathering; tending to crops & livestock; milling grain; & serving her male partner & adult male relatives & making sure they are satiated before she & the kids get fed. In other settings, it means making grocery lists; doing the food shopping or arranging for food to be delivered; cooking breakfast & dinner every day; making & packing the kids' school lunches; throwing dinner parties; making sure the cupboards, fridge & liquor cabinet are always full of the food & drinks her male partner likes & always making sure that whenever she & her kids go out, she's got snacks, beverages & a sandwich tucked in her bag in case anyone gets hungry or thirsty.

Also, when you claim that "women on average are going to be better at breast feeding" than men, you are suggesting that men can breastfeed - just not as well as women. This is not true. Men can't breastfeed children at all.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Male brute strength is only required for some kinds of violence that together constitute a minority of all violence, which Oxford defines as behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Ever since weapons were first invented & men created hierarchies in which rulers & generals commanded other men in armies & gangs, a great deal of violence in the world has been done by & at the behest of men past the prime of life whose own physical strength wasn't impressive & didn't play a role in carrying out the violence they caused.

The disconnect between physical strength and weaponry only arrived with gunpowder. Even so soldiering still requires physical strength that gives males an advantage. I don't see any way round that. Otherwise we could have truly integrated sports. But that wouldn't make sense.

I don't think that aggression is entirely down to socialised advantages of physical strength. I think men are more aggressive on average that's why men on average carry on being more focused on weapons beyond the personal level. They are in an arms race. That does not mean the arms race is a good thing.

A breastfeeding woman is fulfilling a biological role, not a gender role.

Why would nature leave leave it to chance without even a tendancy?

Women don't think of BFing as "feminine," but as female.

I don't think even a majority of women in the West disconnect breastfeeding from femininity. OK it depends how you define it. But the relationship is hard to disconnect. I terms of gender norms it is going to be associated with women.

Gender ideology says that because women are the ones capable of breastfeeding children, then a woman's "natural role" in a heterosexual family is also to do all the tasks required to feed her entire family forevermore.

Well I can't see man's natural role as breast feeding. Even with some trans positions.

The natural position is not the ought but it can't break the tendency. The choice does not end the biology.

In some settings, this can mean spending hours each day gathering firewood & fetching water; hunting, trapping, fishing & gathering; tending to crops & livestock; milling grain; & serving her male partner & adult male relatives & making sure they are satiated before she & the kids get fed. In other settings, it means making grocery lists; doing the food shopping or arranging for food to be delivered; cooking breakfast & dinner every day; making & packing the kids' school lunches; throwing dinner parties; making sure the cupboards, fridge & liquor cabinet are always full of the food & drinks her male partner likes & always making sure that whenever she & her kids go out, she's got snacks, beverages & a sandwich tucked in her bag in case anyone gets hungry or thirsty.

Even in industrial societies women will on average continue to actively care more for children than men.

I think there are some natural behaviour biases, not absolutes, that create that trend. It is not an absolute, it is not a moral demand.

Also, when you claim that "women on average are going to be better at breast feeding" than men, you are suggesting that men can breastfeed - just not as well as women. This is not true. Men can't breastfeed children at all.

Well I agree. That's why I think men, naturally, are going to be on average less child focused, they literally cannot breastfeed and therefore probably naturally have desire in that particular associated role.

Something associated with women is going to be considered feminine. Even if not all women do it, or some men desire to.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You said men are better at violence because of their physical strength. Now you are switching terms, speaking of aggression rather than violence. Maybe you're not aware of this, but pretending you were talking about B before when you actually spoke of A is a tactic I've noticed you use a lot. It's an underhanded tactic. I'm not gonna play along.

The disconnect between physical strength and weaponry only arrived with gunpowder.

This is not true. For millennia before the invention of gunpowder, all sorts of violence in war & everyday life was committed using weapons and weaponized objects. Rocks, logs, tree branches, stone flints, arrows, poison, swords, knives, maces, catapults, torture devices like the rack and methods such as inducing mass starvation by salting the earth of one's enemies in order to make it impossible for them to grow crops or for grazing animals to survive. Fire and fire bombs also have been used as weapon to commit human violence for many thousands of years, as in the age-old practice of torching homes, towns, cities & fields and burning people to death.

Long before gun powder was invented, mostly male humans also employed various animals to help them enact violence against other humans. Attack dogs have been around forever. In Asia & Africa, elephants were used to trample. Snakes with lethal venom have been kept by humans in many cultures for the purpose of using them to bite & kill other humans. Humans often used horses to commit common acts of heinous violence, such as when a person would be tied to a horse & dragged as the horse galloped, or in the case of drawing & quartering.

I don't think even a majority of women in the West disconnect breastfeeding from femininity. OK it depends how you define it. But the relationship is hard to disconnect. I terms of gender norms it is going to be associated with women.

Thanks for the mansplaining. You keep equating femaleness with "femininity" & confusing "gender norms" with biological processes. I do not believe that your claim that most women in the West (or anywhere else) connect breastfeeding to "femininity" is true. Women connect BFing to femaleness and to women, but not to "femininity."

I also don't believe you are the voice of authority on this. I'm also not the voice of authority on what all women in the West or the rest of the world believe either. But as a woman who has breastfed, been in breastfeeding support groups, knows a lot of other women from the West as well as other parts of the world who have breastfed & has discussed BFing with them, has read quite a lot about breastfeeding, I think I can speak with more authority about this than you.

You and other men like you who are hung up on "gender" are the principal ones who connect BFing to "femininity." Not women who have actually engaged in BFing.

Something associated with women is going to be considered feminine.

The passive voice is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Why don't you state what you mean more honestly? Which would be to say something along the lines of, "I and others who share a genderist mindset consider things associated with women to be feminine."

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

You said men are better at violence because of their physical strength.

Yes. I've always pointed to the relationship between dimorphic bodies lending themselves to dimorphic behaviours. It's hard to see there would not be a natural relationship.

This is not true. For millennia before the invention of gunpowder, all sorts of violence in war & everyday life was committed using weapons and weaponized objects. Rocks, logs, tree branches, stone flints, arrows, poison, swords, knives, maces, catapults, torture devices like the rack and methods such as inducing mass starvation by salting the earth of one's enemies in order to make it impossible for them to grow crops or for grazing animals to survive. Fire and fire bombs also have been used as weapon to commit human violence for many thousands of years, as in the age-old practice of torching homes, towns, cities & fields and burning people to death.

But physical weapons rely on personal physical strength too. It's hard labour still today.

I'm not sure what we're debating on this.

Thanks for the mansplaining. You keep equating femaleness with "femininity" & confusing "gender norms" with biological processes. I do not believe that your claim that most women in the West (or anywhere else) connect breastfeeding to "femininity" is true. Women connect BFing to femaleness and to women, but not to "femininity."

I would think most people do mix all of them up because there aren't clear boundaries.

Are you arguing for two classifications then "femininity" and "gender norms."

I agree there are different forms of these things. I still think you will have something close to femininity, and masculinity for that matter, that are connected to sexuality that populations will not be indifferent to.

I also don't believe you are the voice of authority on this.

Well it's a debate forum. If the topic wasn't disputed there wouldn't be a debate. If you think men can't comment on any of this then what's the point. I would think any men or women here should be able to comment on men, women, crossdressers, trans people, gay people, whoever. As long as it's kept civil enough. I'm interested to hear from others.

You and other men like you who are hung up on "gender" are the principal ones who connect BFing to "femininity." Not women who have actually engaged in BFing.

Womanhood then? Are you connecting BFing with womanhood and femininity to something else?

I am open to a difference.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you think men can't comment on any of this then what's the point.

Oh c'mon. I never, ever said that. I said I do not think either you or I are the voice of authority on what all women think about BFing either. But I said that I think I have more authority than you on the topic of BFing due to my sex & the fact that I've actually breastfed. To which you huffily respond as though I told you "men can't comment on any of this."

Womanhood then? Are you connecting BFing with womanhood and femininity to something else?

No, for the last time, just as I am not connecting breastfeeding to "femininity, I am also not connecting it "womanhood." Womanhood is a word I eschew coz of historical connotations - & coz it always makes me think of head coverings like hijabs or a nabe where no men or children live, LOL.

I am connecting breastfeeding to femaleness, specifically femaleness in mammals of childbearing age postpartum.

https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/nursing-baby-animals.html

[–]Juniperius 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Otherwise we could have truly integrated sports. But that wouldn't make sense.

This isn't parallel. The point of sports is to push bodies themselves towards their limits of ability, to compete on the basis of inherent strength and ability. The point of most other activities is to accomplish some external goal, which is why we use tools, weapons, etc to extend the body in ways that make strength and so forth less relevant. This is why it's possible to cheat in sports, whereas if you come up with some clever way of making it easier to, say, move large amounts of dirt around a construction site, or conquer your enemies without brute force, people won't say, hey, no fair, that's cheating.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That remark of Theory's comment about sports was/is a total non sequitur that has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

Theory likes to keep switching the topic from one topic to another: he makes points about violence, then later pretends he was talking about aggression, or about soldiering. Then he pretends soldiering means sports. I used to think he was just a sloppy thinker & writer, but I have come to the conclusion that it's a deliberate tactic he reverts to whenever he is challenged. Rather than respond to the challenge directly, he starts talking about another tangentially related topic. It's tiresome.

I don't think anyone GC would dispute that males & females are physically different in myriad ways that causes males to have enormous advantages over females in the vast majority of sports. Nor would anyone GC dispute that males are better suited to certain kinds of soldiering, such as the infantry or in battles that involve hand to hand combat against males. But even before the invention of gunpowder that sort of soldiering was responsible for only some of the violence men have committed in the world.

Moreover, since the dawn of time, foot soldiers have always been commanded by rulers & officers who are not putting their own bodies on the front lines, or on the line at all, & thus their level or lack of physical strength is immaterial. Many rulers & military commanders have been older or elderly men, some of them with disabilities.

In WW 2, for example, the leaders of the Allied powers were men well past their physical prime whose health problems meant they personally would not have survived long on a battlefield: FDR's legs were paralyzed due to polio; Stalin had limited or no use of his left arm due to an injury sustained when he was 12 & was a very heavy smoker who suffered a stroke at the end of the war; and Churchill, though strong of spirit, was an overweight heavy drinker & cigar smoker with chronic depression & heart disease who suffered a heart attack in 1941 & a bad bout of pneumonia in 1943.

Harry Truman, who became POTUS toward the end of the war after FDR's death, was a slightly-built man who had very poor eyesight since childhood that required him to wear very thick glasses & fit the criteria for "legal blindness;" as a result, he was rejected for West Point & also for military service when he initially applied - he ended up joining the Missouri National Guard, but he only got in because he'd memorized the eye charts. Yet whilst Truman's eyesight & age meant he wouldn't have made it a day as a soldier on the battlefield, nor could he have been a pilot or gunner, neither his age nor this stopped Truman from being able to take the decisive executive actions he did to bring WW2 in the Pacific to a close by dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki, events that caused at least 200,000 deaths.

[–]strictly 9 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 6 fun -  (24 children)

I think masculinity and femininity are sexuality.

I am also curious about what you mean with this. Are you saying it sexually arouses a masculine/feminine person to display masculinity/femininity? Or are you saying masculine and feminine people use their masculinity/femininity to attract sexual partners? Or do you mean we are sexually attracted to people displaying masculinity/femininity? Or perhaps a combination of all three?

Masculinity and femininity follow the same pattern.

I don’t think gender roles are necessary for the development of androphilai/gynephilia. I think androphilia/gynpehilia can end up developing in different ways depending on what it hooked into during development. In a society without gender roles there would only be biological sex for androphilia/gynephilia to hook into as that would be the only thing associated with the each sex. We don’t live in a world without gender roles though so for some people androphilia/gynephila might have hooked into everything associated with each sex, including cultural things. Or in some cases it might have only hooked into the cultural things but not the biological sex itself, making the person attracted to masculinity/femininity regardless of the sex of the person.

Is your theory that most people would end up asexual in a hypothetical genderless society?

It's emergent from human nature so you can't abolish it.

I think there might be a biological mechanism making people on average more likely to imitate members of their own sex as there has been a few of studies pointing in that direction. But that wouldn't make gender roles inevitable per se.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Could you share the studies you mentioned at the end of your comment?

[–]strictly 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (11 children)

Could you share the studies you mentioned at the end of your comment?

Here girls with CAH (who were exposed to more prenatal androgens) seem less likely than other girls to follow fake female gender norms (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0125) so prenatal hormones might influence who we imitate. It was a long time ago since I read about the self-socialization theory so can't find the other studies right now but there was a finding on monkeys where male monkeys didn't learn to be take care of monkey children by female monkeys, but if there were older nurturing male monkeys, then they would follow the example of these nurturing male monkeys and learn to take care of monkey children from them.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

When girl is said that she is "other" or she is laughed out for having facial hair from the very childhood - no wonder she will not want to comply with gender stereotypes.

2016

Poor women with CAH pulled into this gender nonsense.

For example, boys tend to prefer playing with toy vehicles and weapons, whereas girls tend to prefer playing with dolls and tea sets.

That's a lie, which was already debunked in studies in 90s and 00s, as all this is imposed on kids. There was study, that younger boys will always play dolls with their older sister and will not find it girlish or anything, until tell it in school or elsewhere and be laughed out for doing this, only then those boys would start doing "what other boys do" - to "fit the group they belong".

This study says this later themselves:

In regard to gender-typed toys, parents, teachers and peers all encourage gender-consistent toy choices more than they encourage gender-atypical choices.

But they are still making assumption, that it is what boys and girls like and that it is natural. Which is not.

I'd ask /u/ColoredTwice experience on this, as she has CAH herself.

All the girls with CAH had been assigned and reared as girls, and treated with hormones postnatally to normalize their cortisol and androgen concentrations. Similarly, all the boys with CAH had been assigned and reared as boys, and they were treated with the same hormones as girls were to normalize postnatal hormone concentrations.

This is very weird statement. As far as I know, if they receive treatment for "wrong sex" - they will simply die. So there no "assigment" involved - it is just what medical personel was required to do to save lives of those kids.

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

When girl is said that she is "other" or she is laughed out for having facial hair from the very childhood - no wonder she will not want to comply with gender stereotypes.

Girls with CAH who get treatment don't all grow facial hair in early childhood, I think it would have been mentioned in the study if following fake gender norms depended on the child being bearded or not.

That's a lie, which was already debunked in studies in 90s and 00s, as all this is imposed on kids.

The study will mention other studies, that's almost inevitable, even studies you agree with would more often than not also mentions studies you don't agree with, but this is not the study itself. And the conclusion of the study is that the difference is not about the toys themselves.

But they are still making assumption, that it is what boys and girls like and that it is natural.

The point of the study is making fake norms and see the tendency to follow them. There is an article mentioning this study where Cordelia Fine who wrote the book delusions of gender is one of the co-authors https://theconversation.com/how-we-inherit-masculine-and-feminine-behaviours-a-new-idea-about-environment-and-genes-82524.

This is very weird statement. As far as I know, if they receive treatment for "wrong sex" - they will simply die. So there no "assigment" involved - it is just what medical personel was required to do to save lives of those kids.

They will use woke terms as they have to. Almost all studies nowadays use woke terms in some way or the other, one has to ignore that and read the meaning behind the word if one likes reading studies.

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate. I have read many studies and I have also read Cordelia Fine's books where she criticize the studies, and I mostly agree with the criticisms. One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people, and that seems to be the case for pre-homosexuals too (i.e children who are more gender non-conforming seem to be more likely to be same-sex attracted later in life). There are many ways to try to explain away this but none of those explanations ever seemed that convincing to me. The self-socialization theory would explain it though, and the self-socialization theory doesn't support the inevitability of gender norms.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people

That is the easiest part to explain, actually.

I saw that I am different to others in my sexuality, so I just went different in other ways as well, just because I already was not like others in some aspects. It was very strange not to see any other woman loving women, everyone was with men, so I thought I am just weird, and when I rebelled against "you need to date boys" - I went full GNC for few years during my teen years. I am bisexual, but with very strong preference for women, and because of social pressure, I decided I will only ever be with women. I know many similar stories about going GNC from lesbians and gay men. Especially gay men who were bullied - went even more GNC. Most transsexuals I know are gay men, who were victims of homophobia, who went full GNC and later full "feminine" to a "I will be a woman" degree.

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate.

It is hard to say. Boys and girls have different experience and different capabilities based on our biological differences. Same situation will be perceived differently by boys and girls, even if both will receive same treatment, same socialization and will have everything else the same. Our bodies are different, we can't escape this. Same goes with hormones - progesterone is working like sedative, while testosterone is working as anti-depressant and energetic. I don't think it will ever be possible to clearly know are we born with blank state or not, but just because our biological bodies, needs and experiences are different - we will be different as groups (men and women) always. We are - our experience and our biological needs.

[–]strictly 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I saw that I am different to others in my sexuality, so I just went different in other ways as well, just because I already was not like others in some aspects.

I was a tomboy as a kid and got bullied for it. I was a tomboy before I knew I was a lesbian. Among GNC homosexuals many seem to have been GNC before puberty, long before they were aware of being different from other kids in sexuality. There are certainly those who become GNC later too, and many who were never GNC at all, but on average homosexuals seem to have been more likely to have been GNC from a very early age than straight people on average. That is why some homosexuals are concerned about early child transition for GNC children and see that as gay conversion therapy as a significant percentage of them would probably grow up as homosexual.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Anyway, it's worth mentioning I don't believe in the blank slate. I have read many studies and I have also read Cordelia Fine's books where she criticize the studies, and I mostly agree with the criticisms. One of the things that are hard to explain through pure socialization is the heterosexual/homosexual differences. In studies homosexuals are on average more gender non-conforming than heterosexual people, and that seems to be the case for pre-homosexuals too (i.e children who are more gender non-conforming seem to be more likely to be same-sex attracted later in life). There are many ways to try to explain away this but none of those explanations ever seemed that convincing to me. The self-socialization theory would explain it though, and the self-socialization theory doesn't support the inevitability of gender norms.

Agree with this.

There is bad gender science. But bad gender science does not mean there is no science to gender.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Here girls with CAH (who were exposed to more prenatal androgens) seem less likely than other girls to follow fake female gender norms (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0125) so prenatal hormones might influence who we imitate.

Please explain where the "prenatal androgens" and "prenatal hormones" that these persons "were exposed to" in utero came from. How are they different to the androgens and hormones that babies are "exposed to" during the puberty of infancy?

Why is that you (& many others) are so willing to give credence to the idea that "prenatal hormones might influence" human behavior, but totally overlook the possible role of the sex hormones human babies make in vast quantities in the first 6 months of life starting at circa 4 weeks after birth?

Your generalizations about "monkeys" undermines your arguments. There are many, many different monkey species & a great variety of behaviors has been found amongst them. Which specific kind of monkey are you referring to here?

[–]strictly 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Please explain where the "prenatal androgens" and "prenatal hormones" that these persons "were exposed to" in utero came from. How are they different to the androgens and hormones that babies are "exposed to" during the puberty of infancy?

I think androgens in general are relevant, and the timing, as androgens don't always have the same effect depending on the timing.

Why is that you (& many others) are so willing to give credence to the idea that "prenatal hormones might influence" human behavior, but totally overlook the possible role of the sex hormones human babies make in vast quantities in the first 6 months of life starting at circa 4 weeks after birth?

I didn't mention the existence of the sun either. Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean I don't believe in it. I can't mention everything as that would make posting something a full time job.

Your generalizations about "monkeys" undermines your arguments.

I said monkeys as I didn't remember the species and couldn't find the study, I mentioned not finding the study and it being several years ago since reading it so everyone would be free to ignore if they wanted to.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh c'mon. You said that prenatal hormones that fetuses "are exposed to" at some unspecified time during the 40 weeks it takes for a human fetus to grow to full term have a major influence on sex-linked traits & behavior much later on in life. Specifically you claimed that girls exposed to "more prenatal androgens" due to CAH are "less likely than other girls to follow fake gender norms" when they grow up, suggesting a cause & effect relationship.

This could well be the case. But it still raises the obvious question: where do these prenatal hormones supposedly come from? Moreover, it raises the issue of why the exclusive focus on the androgens & hormones in a fetus's system in utero - which as I'm sure you know can't be tested for or measured - whilst completely ignoring infants' sex hormones during the puberty of infancy that occurs in the first 6 months after birth, which we know are as high as they will be later on in the puberty of adolescence - & which can be tested for & measured very safely & easily?

One of the reasons I asked these questions is that when "prenatal androgens" & "prenatal hormones" that fetuses "are exposed to" are brought up to explain the development of behaviors later in a child or adult's life long after birth, it is often done with the intent of implying that these hormones come not from the fetus itself, but from the mother. According to a theory advanced by many misogynists and genderists, for some unknown reason women's bodies during pregnancy sometimes give rise to unpredictable surges of sex hormones that cause some fetuses to be flooded with tsunami-like "washes" of the sex hormones that usually predominate in the sex opposite to the fetuses' own sex . This in turn supposedly causes affected fetuses to end up many years later as children, adolescents or adults who are in some way atypical in terms of "gender" expression, identity &/or sexual orientation - or to have other issues like autism, anxiety and learning disabilities.

I'm not saying this is what you are saying or you believe. Just that this is usually the view of those who advance these sorts of theories about fetal "exposure to" prenatal sex hormones at unspecified times prior to birth.

A good way to get an idea if there's merit to the impact of early hormone exposure would be to test & measure the androgens & other sex hormones of babies in the puberty of infancy, then track the tested children as they grow up to see how they turn out. This could easily be done without risking any harm to the tested infants. Whilst it wouldn't solve the mystery of what happens hormonally inside human fetuses in utero, it certainly would go a long way to showing whether there really is a link, & how strong a link it is, between early-in-life sex hormone levels & such matters as later physical development, psychosexual development, sexual orientation, "gender conformity" or lack thereof, athletic ability & interests, trans identification and so on.

But no one seems to want to do this or even to discuss it. Rather, most people today who believe that sex hormone exposure early in life is important to, & predictive of, behaviors & inclinations later on in life would rather ignore investigating the measurable hormones of the puberty of infancy so they can continue to speculate solely about "androgen exposure" & "hormone washes" in utero.

Again, not saying this is what you believe or would rather do. I have no idea what you think. It's just that for the sake of all who might be reading, whenever someone brings up the issue of the impact of "prenatal hormones" on the trajectory of people's lives much later on, I feel a duty to raise questions to point up the unsubstantiated nature of these claims, as well as the mother-blaming that often underlies them.

[–]strictly 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

You said that prenatal hormones that fetuses "are exposed to" at some unspecified time during the 40 weeks it takes for a human fetus to grow to full term have a major influence on sex-linked traits & behavior much later on in life.

I said seem, not definitely, and nothing about major, it’s theory about child imitation. I didn’t state anything about other androgens not mattering. But androgens at one stage doesn't necessarily lead to the same effects as androgen at another stage, and I don't know how long the researchers think this particular timing window expands, and the study itself primarily talks about prenatal androgens, and it’s also hard to know if these girls continued to have an overproduction of androgens even after birth as many of them probably were diagnosed with CAH at birth and got treatment for it, so there wouldn't be much for me to expand on regarding the potential role of post natal hormones in this particular case. I also don’t have limitless time so I will never be able to speak about everything that can be factor.

But it still raises the obvious question: where do these prenatal hormones supposedly come from?

Untreated CAH leads to an overproduction of androgens, this starts before they are born which is why girls with CAH might be born with virilized genitalia.

it is often done with the intent of implying that these hormones come not from the fetus itself, but from the mother

Never implied it came from the mother here, the girls in study have CAH so I thought was obvious that source the was the condition the girls had.

According to a theory advanced by many misogynists and genderists, for some unknown reason women's bodies during pregnancy sometimes give rise to unpredictable surges of sex hormones that cause some fetuses to be flooded with tsunami-like "washes" of the sex hormones that usually predominate in the sex opposite to the fetuses' own sex . This in turn supposedly causes affected fetuses to end up many years later as children, adolescents or adults who are in some way atypical in terms of "gender" expression, identity &/or sexual orientation - or to have other issues like autism, anxiety and learning disabilities.

Prenatal/neonatal androgens being a factor is the leading theory behind female homosexuality. Regarding conditions where scientists think prenatal/neonatal androgens might have a role they are generally uncertain regarding the source of the influencing hormones. It’s known that mothers with certain hormonal conditions (like PCOS) are more likely to give birth to children with certain conditions, making early hormone exposure a possible factor in that condition but this doesn't mean the source of the hormones must come from the mother as it’s equally likely that the child simply inherited the genes related to the mother’s hormonal condition and that in turn causes the child to have a higher androgen production.

at unspecified times prior to birth

It sounded like you thought I too specific for not talking about the potential role of post-natal hormones, but here you seem to think not mentioning a month is too unspecific. They do have theories about the when for some of these things as there some indications about the timings but that would be on a more speculative level.

But no one seems to want to do this or even to discuss it

I think researchers are interested in doing a study like the way you say but studies in this area are not well-funded so often they can only get funding for studies that are very cheap to make. Plus I imagine there is a lot of paper work with consent even for studies that seem simple. As for me, I’m interested in the research but I’m not a researcher, and although I have read a wide range of studies I can’t read studies that don’t yet exist, it’s not to due to lack of wanting. Anyway, it's worth noting the prenatal/neonatal hormones being a factor is only the leading theory for female homosexuality, not male homosexuality (as there are other factor they think matters more there).

as well as the mother-blaming that often underlies them.

What is there to blame if we are talking about homosexuality/GNC? It’s a neutral thing, neither good nor bad. I don’t understand why we should be morally invested in from whom the potentially influencing androgens originally came from, it’s not like we should need a scapegoat to blame in this context as being atypical is not being defective. And in the contexts where the child does indeed have negative condition with strong inheritable factors (like haemophilia) I still don’t think we should see any parent as blameworthy for contributing the gene. Seeing the idea of being the carrier as close to slander would contribute to the idea that the carrier would morally guilty in some way.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (10 children)

I meant to say "I think masculinity and femininity are deeply naturally connected to sexuality"

Only a mistake.

I am also curious about what you mean with this. Are you saying it sexually arouses a masculine/feminine person to display masculinity/femininity? Or are you saying masculine and feminine people use their masculinity/femininity to attract sexual partners? Or do you mean we are sexually attracted to people displaying masculinity/femininity? Or perhaps a combination of all three?

A bit of all three. Mostly the last.

A person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is.

I don’t think gender roles are necessary for the development of androphilai/gynephilia. I think androphilia/gynpehilia can end up developing in different ways depending on what it hooked into during development.

Well I do think there is an environmental contribution.

But I don't think masculinity or femininity would ever become completely disconnected from the erotic.

In a society without gender roles there would only be biological sex for androphilia/gynephilia to hook into as that would be the only thing associated with the each sex.

By gender roles we can say gender norms. I don't think it's technically possible to create a society without gender norms.

Theoretically if you really forced it they would always emerge and the process of elimination would render too much social trauma and sublimation.

We don’t live in a world without gender roles though so for some people androphilia/gynephila might have hooked into everything associated with each sex, including cultural things. Or in some cases it might have only hooked into the cultural things but not the biological sex itself, making the person attracted to masculinity/femininity regardless of the sex of the person.

Well I do think there can be a disconnect between the cultural aspects and the physical aspects. But then I think humans sexuality is very cultural and gendered.

Is your theory that most people would end up asexual in a hypothetical genderless society?

Generally I think gendered sexuality would assert itself in other ways. It would always appear perhaps in unexpected ways. Constant suppression of all gendered sexuality might cause sexual dysfunction though or an excessive physical obsession.

A minority might be perfectly happy within that though.

I think there might be a biological mechanism making people on average more likely to imitate members of their own sex as there has been a few of studies pointing in that direction. But that wouldn't make gender roles inevitable per se.

Gender roles can cover a lot here, that might not cover all gender norms.

Humans both consciously sexualise and unconsciously sexualise.

[–]Juniperius 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

an excessive physical obsession

What does this mean?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

I was thinking of something like a strong physical obsession. Like the porn which is very anatomical with little else.

I'm not sure. This is speculation because it would have to be a society under constant analysis about personal sexual thoughts.

[–]Juniperius 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So being attracted to people rather than clothes? Two bodies together, this is a dysfunction to you?

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Well the society would be constantly policing them to avoid sexualizing anything that wasn't anatomical or equal.

[–]Juniperius 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You are so weird.

[–]strictly 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

A bit of all three. Mostly the last. A person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is.

You say you mean mostly the last one but the last sentence refers to the first one, no? And you said believed in all three a bit. Anyway I think you are wrong about the first one if you see that as a general rule for people.

I hope you don’t mind that I call you autogynephilic (not a moral judgment) as this seems to be a common error people with AGP/AAP tend to make, assuming everyone else also have AGP/AAP. As a lesbian I made a similar error growing up. I grew up in homophobic/religious family and was taught homosexuals were straight people with a same-sex fetish so I thought I had this fetish but was otherwise straight. Due to this I thought straight girls only pretended to like boys as I had never experienced it, and that girls with boyfriends were dumb for not saying no to having boyfriends (I found boys repulsive so I figured that had to be standard sentiment for straight girls). It took time for me to understand they weren’t behaving illogically and that it was me being dumb for not realizing they actually liked boys.

I think what causes a woman to conform to femininity is generally different from what causes a male cross dresser with AGP to conform to femininity. The woman would have been socialized into it since early age but a male cross dresser with AGP is aroused by performing femininity so he would be motivated by that.

You say you think a person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is. I think people who are aroused by expressing masculinity or femininity are generally aware of it, and I would guess you too are aware of finding it exciting. Some might not like the awareness though, so they call it something else, like gender euphoria, or they mistakenly think it’s like that for everyone, but they do tend to be aware of their sexual excitement in some way. I am a masculine woman and I think there are factors that might have influenced that. I have never found being masculine exciting though, and when someone talks about how their masculinity as being sexually arousing or euphoric to them it’s like hearing androphilic people talking about men, it’s very unrelatable and the way they talk about it often seems androphilic in nature to me.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

You say you mean mostly the last one but the last sentence refers to the first one, no? And you said believed in all three a bit. Anyway I think you are wrong about the first one if you see that as a general rule for people.

I think the first occurs just less often but I think it's there.

I hope you don’t mind that I call you autogynephilic (not a moral judgment)

I'm not a blanchardian, autogynephilia is used incredibly as a moral judgement, but as long as you are polite I don't mind. I like the honesty.

I am in part an "erotic dresser" and I have to rationalise that. But I also just think it's some kind of identity. I want to express that.

Blanchardianism seems to have many holes. It keeps making exceptions and the supporters keep making their own rules.

I'm not sure how gc reconciles the essentialism of Blanchardianism with its hard equality.

I used to think of my erotic dressing as like a short between two things. But it didn't quite seem right.

I think the common forms of sexuality are related rather than completely disconnected.

I ended up with a take what I call a dynamic component version of gender.

For example I don't think men and women go about androphilia the same way. But I think it's from the same biological trigger.

The same might be true of gender expression. That's how I rationalise it.

Mixing components does not make perfect averages.

Blanchardianism seems too "just so story."

I don't think many women are like crossdressers but some are. Just like most women don't go about androphilia the same way but some do.

as this seems to be a common error people with AGP/AAP tend to make, assuming everyone else also have AGP/AAP.

As a lesbian I made a similar error growing up. I grew up in homophobic/religious family and was taught homosexuals were straight people with a same-sex fetish so I thought I had this fetish but was otherwise straight. Due to this I thought straight girls only pretended to like boys as I had never experienced it, and that girls with boyfriends were dumb for not saying no to having boyfriends (I found boys repulsive so I figured that had to be standard sentiment for straight girls). It took time for me to understand they weren’t behaving illogically and that it was me being dumb for not realizing they actually liked boys.

I think what causes a woman to conform to femininity is generally different from what causes a male cross dresser with AGP to conform to femininity. The woman would have been socialized into it since early age but a male cross dresser with AGP is aroused by performing femininity so he would be motivated by that.

...but you do think your masculinity is natural even though you weren't socialized into it.

You are essentializing sexuality to gender expression right?

I wouldn't say I was comfortable by masculinity and I often don't fit into it. I wouldn't say I was completely feminine. But something is going on with gender. The agp model seems a bit all over the place.

You say you think a person can express masculinity or femininity without being aware of how attractive it is.

Yes.

I think people who are aroused by expressing masculinity or femininity are generally aware of it, and I would guess you too are aware of finding it exciting. Some might not like the awareness though, so they call it something else, like gender euphoria, or they mistakenly think it’s like that for everyone, but they do tend to be aware of their sexual excitement in some way. I am a masculine woman and I think there are factors that might have influenced that.

When you say factors, you mean natural factors.

I have never found being masculine exciting though, and when someone talks about how their masculinity as being sexually arousing or euphoric to them it’s like hearing androphilic people talking about men, it’s very unrelatable and the way they talk about it often seems androphilic in nature to me.

Sure I see what you mean.

But what do you think of masculinity and femininity in others?

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not sure how gc reconciles the essentialism of Blanchardianism with its hard equality.

I not purely into anything, I believe what makes sense to me. I don't call myself a radfem as I don't believe in the blank slate. I don't believe everything in Blanchardianism either.

Blanchardianism seems to have many holes. It keeps making exceptions and the supporters keep making their own rules.

I don't see that as bad thing per se, if something is erroneous then it should be corrected. And if the theory starts not making sense at all, then it should be replaced with a better theory. And we if think Blanchardianism does a fairly good job at getting things right but has holes, and we have no better theory, and the other theories are worse, then I don't really see a problem with Blanchardian model being tweaked into a better model. Theories don't get born perfect.

I am in part an "erotic dresser" and I have to rationalise that. But I also just think it's some kind of identity. I want to express that.

It's not uncommon for people to be romantically attracted to those they are sexually attracted to. I would imagine many paraphilias, including AGP, also have romantic components. I think such a component would be easy to create an identity around. Many trans people (who I suspect are AGP/AAP) talk about their gender identity in with what I perceive as some type of romantic longing. But I am an outsider though, so I can't say for sure if it's like that. Maybe you could describe.

You are essentializing sexuality to gender expression right?

I am saying what i said before, I think there might be a biological mechanism to self-socialization and that early hormones could perhaps influence who we are more likely to imitate as children. You are free to interpret that as essentializing if that is essentializing to you.

...but you do think your masculinity is natural even though you weren't socialized into it.

It feels like my personality, I assume feminine women often feel their femininity is just their personality too (if we don't count things people only do reluctantly because they feel they have to). I am assume I was socialized, I didn't invent a new gender expression, I was probably imitating other people unconsciously. And I was seen as a girl, so I was treated like a girl. I was quite intensely bullied by girl gangs for many years for being a tomboy (they wanted to teach me being more feminine and were angry at me for not complying), and that was social experience I probably wouldn't have had had I not been a girl, and it probably affected me somewhat.

When you say factors, you mean natural factors.

I am not sure what you mean with natural here. With factors I mean I remember being offended at age 4 or 5 when I realized girls were supposed to be decorative to the opposite sex (I don't think I had understood what gendered clothing were before that). From that day I refused to wear anything I considered feminine. My mother still managed to trick me into wearing pink clothes for a couple of months after I had refused skirts/dresses until I realized that pink was also considered feminine, and I was angry with my mother for tricking me. This was socialized, I was reading symbolism into things that i wouldn't have done without a society.

But what do you think of masculinity and femininity in others?

I will probably have to get back to this another day, as I'm a bit short on time right now.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I not purely into anything, I believe what makes sense to me. I don't call myself a radfem as I don't believe in the blank slate. I don't believe everything in Blanchardianism either.

Fair enough I sympathise with not being able to accept one side completely. Part of the story here is the science is not complete which leaves us open to debate. We have to speculate as we best know.

I don't see that as bad thing per se, if something is erroneous then it should be corrected. And if the theory starts not making sense at all, then it should be replaced with a better theory. And we if think Blanchardianism does a fairly good job at getting things right but has holes, and we have no better theory, and the other theories are worse, then I don't really see a problem with Blanchardian model being tweaked into a better model. Theories don't get born perfect.

It's not that it's completely inaccurate in some of the things it records but I don't think it ultimately holds together.

I do think the science will move on.

It's not uncommon for people to be romantically attracted to those they are sexually attracted to. I would imagine many paraphilias, including AGP, also have romantic components. I think such a component would be easy to create an identity around. Many trans people (who I suspect are AGP/AAP) talk about their gender identity in with what I perceive as some type of romantic longing. But I am an outsider though, so I can't say for sure if it's like that. Maybe you could describe.

I really don't relate to the romantic idea of it. It's more like it puts me in the mood. So I would think it unusual behaviour but not unrelated to the rest of sexuality going on. I can read and see women putting themselves in the mood for sexual play through gender expression. It's not absolutely common but it looks more related than not.

A couple points I'd add. I wasn't fixated on one aspect. I didn't masturbate endlessly. I didn't masturbate at all. I just knew it was vaguely sexual, as well as the interest in some form of dominant women. It didn't make sense until a few years into adulthood. That's not from seclusion but from it making no sense in a regular heterosexual world. I knew of gay men in dresses or transwomen but I never saw myself as those.

I am saying what i said before, I think there might be a biological mechanism to self-socialization and that early hormones could perhaps influence who we are more likely to imitate as children. You are free to interpret that as essentializing if that is essentializing to you.

I'm probably in agreement on that.

I often compare gender to language and we do have a natural ability as children to learn language.

It feels like my personality, I assume feminine women often feel their femininity is just their personality too (if we don't count things people only do reluctantly because they feel they have to). I am assume I was socialized, I didn't invent a new gender expression, I was probably imitating other people unconsciously. And I was seen as a girl, so I was treated like a girl. I was quite intensely bullied by girl gangs for many years for being a tomboy (they wanted to teach me being more feminine and were angry at me for not complying), and that was social experience I probably wouldn't have had had I not been a girl, and it probably affected me somewhat.

That makes sense to me.

Though there is a question in gender that goes like this. It does look cultural, or maybe like we most have a natural talent for learning gender. Sometimes that can vary. But how much is innate? How much of the canvas is blank?

Like masculine women such as yourself. Are you learning the language of masculinity or are you expressing innate elements of masculinity as well as cultural aspects? I hope we learn the science on this.

I will probably have to get back to this another day, as I'm a bit short on time right now.

About the masculinity and femininity. I think people can find masculinity and femininity in men or women sexually appealing. Would you agree?